Chattisgarh High Court
Akash Lakdha And Another vs State Of Chhattisgarh on 22 July, 2022
HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH, BILASPUR
Order Sheet
Criminal Appeal No.1290 of 2021
1. Akash Lakdha, S/o Kunwar Sai, aged about 30 years, R/o Dawna, Tilwari Para,
PS-Jhilmili, District-Surajpur (CG)
2. Manoj Kujur, S/o Late Dilbodh Kujur, aged about 19 years, R/o Dawna, PS-
Jhilmili, District Surajpur (CG)
-----Appellants
Versus
The State of Chhattisgarh Through the PS-Jhilmili, District Surajpur (CG)
-----Respondent
Division Bench:-
Hon'ble Shri Justice Sanjay K. Agrawal &
Hon'ble Shri Justice Sanjay S. Agrawal
Motion
22/7/2022 Mr.Shobhit Koshta, counsel for the appellants.
Mr.Ashish Tiwari, Govt.Advocate for the
respondent/State.
Heard on I.A.No.01/2021 for suspension of sentence
and grant of the bail to the appellants.
By the impugned judgment dated 30.9.2021 the Third
Additional Sessions Judge, Surajpur, in S.T.No.30/2018
convicted the appellants for offences punishable under
Section 341 and 302 read with Section 34 of the IPC and
sentenced them to undergo S.I. for 1 month and fine of
Rs.100/-, in default of payment of fine to further undergo R.I.
for 2 months and imprisonment for life and fine of Rs.100/-, in
default of payment of fine to further undergo R.I. for 2
months. They have challenged the same in this appeal.
Mr.Shobhit Koshta, learned counsel appearing for the
appellants, would submit that recovery of axe and gupti from
appellant No.1-Akash Lakda pursuant to his memorandum
statement (Ex.P-9) and seizure (Ex.P-10) has not been
proved in accordance with law and even otherwise, FSL
report (Ex.P-31) is of no help to the prosecution. He would
further submit that even memorandum statement and seizure
of other accused / appellant No.2-Manoj Kujur is not
admissible in evidence in accordance with Section 27 of the
Evidence Act and as such, they are entitled to be released
on bail. He would rely upon the judgments of the Supreme
Court in the matters of Tulsiram Kanu v. The State reported
in AIR 1954 SC 1, Pancho v. State of Haryana reported in
(2011) 10 SCC 165, State of Rajasthan v. Talevar & Anr.
reported in (2011) 11 SCC 666, Bharama Parasram
Kudhachkar v. State of Karnataka reported in (2014) 14 SCC
431, Bijender @ Mandar v. State of Haryana (Criminal
Appeal No.2438/2010 and Shahaja @ Shahajan Ismail
Mohd. Shaikh v. State of Maharashtra reported in 2022
LiveLaw (SC) 596.
On the other hand, Mr.Ashish Tiwari, learned
Government Advocate appearing for the respondent/State,
would oppose the bail application.
We have heard learned counsel for the parties and
perused the records.
Taking into consideration the material available on
record and considering that pursuant to memorandum
statement of appellant-Akash Lakda (Ex.P-9), axe and gupti
have been seized vide Ex.P-10 in which human blood was
found in FSL report (Ex.P-31) and similarly, pursuant to
memorandum statement of appellant-Manoj Kujur (Ex.P-11),
clothes have been seized vide Ex.P-12 and other evidence
available on record, we are not inclined to grant bail to the
appellants. Accordingly, I.A.No.01/2021 is rejected.
Sd/- Sd/-
(Sanjay K. Agrawal) (Sanjay S. Agrawal)
Judge Judge
B/-
